I recall back during the 2000 campaign, when things didn't look very good for Dubya I had told a couple of folks that the only way George W. Bush could pull out a victory at that point was if Ronald Reagan died prior to the election and the country found itself swept by a temporary nostalgia for the golden days when there really was a vast sense of unity --- for the most part --- in America.

Compared to the divisive years of reprehensible --- yes --- Republican partisanship, disgraceful and baseless attacks on a sitting President, unending trumped-up investigations and an eventually discredited impeachment, it seemed to me that America might just latch onto Dubya's rising star as he inevitably would have sought to capitalize on Reagan-mania by casting himself in The Gipper's warm after-glow.

Such a comparison at the time, had it played out that way, as morbidly opportunistic as it might have been, could have caught the imagination of a nation starved for optimistic days of unity and propelled George W. Bush to the front of the race. It seemed, back then, Bush's only hope as I saw it.

Little did I imagine, of course, that they'd end up stealing an election to seal the deal. And of course, Reagan suprisingly held on for another four years, only to "slip the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God" at a time that may as well be 100 political years later than the year 2000.

Now, instead, it seems that Reagan's passing occurs at a rather unfortunate moment for George W. Bush. Aside from occuring on a weekend during which Team Bush had otherwise hoped to benefit from the now routinely "decadanal" D-Day Bump in Presidential esteem, his death at this time succeeds only in pointing up how Bush so desperately pales by direct comparison to a real American leader.

Oh, darn the luck.

Undoubtedly the desperate Right will twist history any way they can to draw some kind of inevitable tortured positive comparison. (Be sure to listen for it as it undoubtely happens live tomorrow on both Rush's and Sean's shows). But I think the trick is now unlikely to gain much traction. The vast differences between the real McCoy and the boy Pretender are now simply all to clear.

The endless retrospectives via every imaginable media outlet only serves to shore up the vast differences between the two men. Reagan actually was, it seems to me, someone with true core beliefs gained by decades of real life experience on both sides of the political aisle; The bold ideas of his strongly held Liberal FDR New Deal roots were applied to a time-earned move to the Right as experience not opportunistc political idealogy - --- as with our boy who would be king --- seemed to govern his core beliefs. Like him or hate him, Ronald Reagan, at least, was the real thing.

Former Reagan Chief-of-Staff and Secretary of State James Baker related this morning on This Week that Reagan "would rather get 80% of what he wanted then go over the cliff with his flag flying". It was a life-lesson learned which Dubya, apparently, hasn't the body of knowledge or intellectual curiosity to even contemplate. That, as he makes his Wile E. Coyote-like descent to disappear in a tiny poof at the bottom of the cliff.

Reagan was so successful in politics because he allowed for pragmatism to win out over rigid Conservative hopes. As Governor, he raised taxes to help balance the budget, he signed the country's most liberal abortion rights legislation at the time, and imposed strict environmental regulation on industry in places like Lake Tahoe ensuring that --- to this day --- there are still clear blue waters visible for 70 feet below the surface.

An Op/Ed in today's LA Times speaks of the many paradoxes of Ronald Reagan, outlining changing and/or nuanced beliefs that the transparently disingenuous GOP of today would have described as little more than "flip-flops" --- assuming, of course, that they applied to a candidate they opposed instead of supported.

Of note also, on a personal and local level, is that Reagan was first an actor from "Liberal Elitist" Hollywood. Who was wise enough to acknowledge on many occassions that "I don't know how you do this job without being an actor".

Meanwhile, for political expediency, today's GOP are the first to denigrate an American with an opinion on the basis that they are "an actor from Hollywood". Pusillanimously reserving, in the meantime, a convenient and hypocritical blind-eye for the Reagans, Schwarzeneggers, Eastwoods, Bonos, Thompsons and Gibsons that carry their water.

Reagan also displayed the strength of character necessesary to take real responsibility, at least occassionally, when things went horribly wrong.

As the ever sharp (and delightfully ascerbic) BRAD BLOG commenter Jaime pointed out, after 241 US marines were killed by terrorists in Beirut and America subsequently withdrew, Reagan bravely told the country "If there is to be blame it rests here and with this president."

Contrast that courageous admission to Bush's hemming and hawing, inability to recall a single mistake in his policies, continuous avoidance of any responsibility for anything from 9/11 up to the present day Iraqi morass were over 800 are now dead and thousands more wounded for a cause that was tenuous at best, and completely discredited now at worse. The stark difference between these two men couldn't be clearer.

Only the despicably blood-sucking Paul Wolfowitz (someone please explain to me why this man still has a job on the United States payroll!) was debased enough to attempt to usurp the nation's love for a true leader before the body was even cold. Just an hour or so after the news broke, while most thoughtful commentators had the reason to focus on Ronald Reagan and avoid comparison in the short term to George W. Bush, there was Wolfowitz on Fox (where else?) attempting to tell America how Ronald Reagan would have supported Bush's current policies in Iraq. How reprehensible. Not to mention, more than likely wrong.

Unlike George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan actually was a uniter, not a divider. Or as close to it, in any case, as anybody can come to such a thing in national politics today anyway.

Mr. Wolfowitz, I grew up during Ronald Reagan's presidency. I voted for Ronald Reagan. Mr. Wolfowitz, George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan.

"attempting to tell America how Ronald Reagan would have supported Bush's current policies in Iraq."

-Bush has, in the grand tradition of the humble Christian he is, has compared himself to FDR, Lincoln, and Churchill. Conservative Talk Show windbags have compared him to Reagan and even have gone so far as stating that Martin Luther King and Ghandi themselves would have approved of Dubya's war in Iraq.

When Bush can string three sentences together in defense of his own policies THEN maybe he can begin comparing himself to these giants of history.

Paul --- i'm not sure what speech impediments have to do with this discussion. Dubya does not have a speech impediment. he has a *vocabulary* impediment, perhaps... he still does not know how to pronounce many words in the English language, like "nuclear", but that's not a speech impediment... it sounds more like Dubya has a learning disability.

Brad --- nice work, as usual; a clear, cogent, and unsentimental analysis of two American presidents.

even if i didn't agree with most of Reagan's policies, at least i could respect him as a person. unfortunately i can't say the same for Dubya.

Des - Most of the media cannot pronounce "Al'Qaida" or the "Chechen" people correctly. Misspronouncing a word or two or several does not make someone stupid. Many people say "PhilaDALphia" or "WORshington." It is not correct but it is how they learned them. Bush is not stupid and I would never underestimate him. Like Reagan, he is a man of his word. He beat a popular Texas governor and the 8-year VP Gore while still unable to pronounce "nuclear."

Unless his words are "We will give 20 billion dollars to NY to fight terrorism" or "We will give First Responders everything they need" or "We will get bin Laden Dead or Alive" or "We found the WMDs!" or "the Federal Government shouldn't interfere with State decisions about Marriage" or "We should be humble in our foreign policy" or "I look forward to speaking to the 9/11 Commission" or "I don't support the creation of the 9/11 Commission" or "I don't support Nation Building" or "Those responsible will be brought to justice (Abu Ghraib)" or "Baradi and the UN will determine the next government of Iraq" or "I hardly know Chalabi/Lay" or...I'd keep typing but my fingers are tired.

I voted for Reagan both times. Actually, the only time that I was foolish enough to support a Dumbocrat was in '76, and we all remember the mess that Peanut Brain made of the nation.

As for the comparison between Bush and Reagan, it is apt. They both are Christian to the core. Neither are Neo-Nazi Pro-Abortion Killing Bastards. Both stand against the Evil in the world (Communism for Reagan, Radical Islam for Bush, Liberalism for both). Both are vilified by the mentally deficient left. Both are called stupid. Both of the men that they defeated (YES, Defeated. Gore was just too incompetant to even steal an election. What a MORON, and what a bunch of MORONS voted for that loser).

Can't wait to see you losers crash and burn in November.

Really, what kind of dipshit would vote for Kerry?
O yeah, a DemoDipShit

I weep that people like that last jackass are the inheritors of the Republican Party.

As we all know, Reagan rarely went to church. He was a religious man, but did not cram it down the throats of every American. He rarely spoke about abortion, and actually signed one of the most liberal abortion laws ever while governor of CA.

MM, Reagan would be aghast at your brutal disrespect and name-calling. Did he ever, once, do the same with Tip O'Neil or Ted Kennedy? No.

I am getting f-ing fed up with these fundamentalist neo-con ideologues hi-jacking Reagan. He was a pragmatist, and knew when to change tactics. Would that Bush was even 1/100th of the Presdient that Reagan was.

Perhaps 'Michael' was fed up with the constant, irrational hate-speach coming from the left.
e.g. The columnist who opined that Reagan was now "toasty brown" (roasting in hell, that is)
e.g. The Left's inability to admit that Bush did indeed win the 2000 election (despite the attempts to rewrite FL election laws; in fact, there were a number of recounts, and Bush won them all. The allegation that the Supreme Court 'Selected' him is pure idiocy. The ruling was that there wasn't time for yet another recount. But, then again, Liberals tend to be short on facts).
e.g. The constant lie that Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat (his words were that it should be taken care of "BEFORE it becomes an imminent threat")

As for Reagan not attending church, he did rarely do it during his administration; nine months before leaving office he told his son Michael that he looked forward to being able to once again worship without fear of an assasination attempt.

As for his pro-life stance, perhaps one ought to read his book, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation".
Y'know what totally turned me off to the Left (besides the fact that the rhetoric is full of lies and half-truths, and, of course, Carter's absolute incompetance)? When Reagan was shot, I was in college. The response of many in my dorm? "I hope the bastard dies".

Any ideology based on lies, hate and vilification (which is what I see as the major thread in Liberalism today) isn't worth it's weight in salt.
As for the statement "Would that Bush was even 1/100th of the President that Reagan was". Why make him less like Reagan?

Because he isn't like Reagan. Because he wasn't a slave to a fundamentalist ideological movement like Bush is. Because, whatever his personal feelings on abortion, he didn't cram it down America's throat with a suggested Constitutional Amendment. Because he reformed the tax code, and didn't riddle it with giveaways the way the current-day GOP is doing.

I understand you're just retyping what you've been told, and wish to believe (on everything from the 2000 Elections to Reagan's stance on Abortion) what you'd like to be the truth rahter than what actually is.

But just for the record, here's one tiny correction for your "imminent threat" smoke and mirrors...

BUSH: "On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."

State of the Union, 2003. "We cannot wait until the threat is imminent".
I do find it strange that Dems who willingly admitted in 1998 that Iraq had WMDs now question the very possibility of such.
The fact is, Saddam had them in the 80's; he used them on his own people.
The fact is, the UN told him to come clean about them; he refused.
The fact is, they're showing up, little by little (like the sarin shell found a few weeks ago and the mustard gas shell found a few weeks before that).
The fact is, Iraq was involved with 9-11. According to Czech intelligence, Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. The Wall Street Journal ran a story last week that recently discovered Iraqi documents substantiate the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. AND, the new President of Iraq affirms the link.

Now, I realize that you Dems are not likely to read this in The New York Times or the Washington Post, neither will you hear it on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, or NPR. You'll have to look beyond the DNC propoganda machine to see this.

As far as Reagan backing a Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment, he may not have done it in your vision of reality, but the fact is that he did in fact support it. I know, I was in the movement then, as I am now.

But, as has been stated, if the facts don't agree with their perspective, Liberals make up new 'facts'. Reality & Truth be damned.

You lefties have so perverted the English Language that it rarely means the same as it did 30 years ago.

Before Roe v Wade, there was never any talk about 'the foetus'. It was 'the baby', an implicit recognition that life exists prior to birth.

A gay person meant "a happy person", not "homosexual".

"Rights" were something guaranteed by the Constitution, not the invention of some activist judge.

But, then again, you're probably a bunch of illiterates who have no concept of orwellian Newspeak.

I'll not return to this blog. Like all liberals, you're too concerned with your irrational, hate-filled inbreeding to ever consider facts.